You have to laugh at the story in today's AdAge about the possibility that Dove's "Real Beauty" campaign might have been using massively retouched photos. Apparently in an upcoming May 12 profile in The New Yorker posted online, Pascal Dangin of New York's Box Studios is quoted as saying he extensively retouched photos used in the the Ogilvy, Campaign for Real Beauty, which won all kinds of awards and accolades when it first came out a few years ago. Wouldn't fucking surprise me. I honestly believe that most of the people running BDA's are their own worst fucking enemies. If the whole basis of the campaign was that finally a beauty products company would tell the plain, unvarnished and respectful truth about women and their bodies, wouldn't you think they would fucking bend over backwards to be honest about the whole thing. But no... That's not the way BDA's look at the world, whether it comes to their clients, the audiences they are addressing, or the poor fucking troops in the trenches who have to put up with the continuing decline of their working environment and rewards. This business is fucked!
.
Who's laughing now?
It was a nice idea. Shame about the retouching but honestly, the thing was totally fucked in the first place because no one wants to look at an ugly fat woman and think "mmm, yes, I could be like that".
People want to look at beautiful people because they need to aspire to look like beautiful people.
Posted by: Wisey | May 08, 2008 at 08:30 AM
Dimmer switches and vodka always worked for me.
Posted by: Studio Maven | May 08, 2008 at 08:38 AM
That beautiful people stuff is so old.
Men and women fall in love with unretouched men and women every single day. This campaign could and should have stayed true to its premise. Period.
We all need to realize that we now live in a world where honesty is so easily checked. And lies so easily uncovered.
Using retouching for these photos - if indeed it was used - is the advertising equivalent of "landing under sniper fire." The Internet means the truth is out there - and it usually surfaces.
I agree with George - this is one more example of BDAs failing to understand and adapt to a changing world.
Posted by: inside Out | May 08, 2008 at 08:46 AM
Of course there's going to be some cleanup, and I don't see the big deal if that's all they did. What if it was just to even out hot spots or shadows in the photography? Whiten bloodshot eyeballs? Soften a c-section scar? Eliminate anything dark peaking through the panties? The women still look pretty real to me. I don't think it changes the concept of saying you can be short, plain and have a muffin top and still feel sexy.
Posted by: Auntie Christ | May 08, 2008 at 09:11 AM
Here is a before and after shot
http://bp1.blogger.com/_5xACNTuSJw0/SCMcKsDG9iI/AAAAAAAAALg/1E3teUbVmUo/s1600-h/Dove+Campaign+for+Real+Beauty.jpg
Posted by: Wisey | May 08, 2008 at 09:40 AM
I've always thought that the strategy behind that campaign was that it takes a lot more soap to wash a fat person than a skinny one.
Posted by: mr. barnum | May 08, 2008 at 10:02 AM
ehh, I still don't see the big deal here. Yeah, it is kind of ironic but this doesn't bother me too much.
But, they didn't really use 'real' ladies. if they would have taken a real random sample of the population there would have been a lot of fat, nasty looking hambeasts. These ladies are still better looking than 90% of the US population.
Posted by: James | May 08, 2008 at 10:03 AM
James has a point. There isn't one mullet in the bunch!
Imagine this ad with all the women who've been on the View!
Posted by: Auntie Christ | May 08, 2008 at 10:10 AM
I'd hate to be Nancy Vonk, she who got Neil French canned for demeaning women.
Posted by: Joyce King Thomas | May 08, 2008 at 11:43 AM
As a woman ... a tiny bit of re-touching is okay by me. Frankly after sitting around under those hot lights for hours trying to take those photos, getting rid of my sweaty and running make up is fine.
Until I know how much re-touching was done ... I am reserving judgment.
Posted by: Jane Sample | May 08, 2008 at 01:55 PM
i find it hard to believe that anyone, much less cynical ad folks, for one second bought that there was an ounce of sincerity in this 'real beauty' idea. they're uni-f**king-lever! they'll do anything for a buck.
Posted by: veedub | May 08, 2008 at 03:48 PM
Facts on this story are all wrong. The retoucher actually cleared the dust from the lens of one ad - the one with the older naked ladies - so you could see more. Amazing how quick everyone is to jump all over the one campaign that has made advertising seem smart in years.
Posted by: agencyinsider | May 08, 2008 at 08:41 PM
at the end of the day, it's not like they took Jabba the Hut and made him into Princess Di... that would be massive retouching.
c'mon, fair's fair... those are some pretty ordinary women in those shots, and yes, the art director went for the best amongst them, par for the course...
that should be an example of the worst that BDA's do... to me the real sin was Dove at Cannes.
Posted by: the lower depths | May 09, 2008 at 03:31 AM